Swift
And this is the issue I have with people constantly pushing science as the truth when it can change at any point. I'm not saying that science is always wrong. Just that since exceptions can be made to "fit the bill" so to speak.
Again, I'm not badmouthing all science and all discoveries. Just that the same thing you just said about science has been said about the bible to prove that it's wrong.
That's a good point, and raises an important distinction to make from the outset. Science - or more specifically, scientific knowledge - should
not be touted as 'absolute' truth, but merely as our understanding of trueisms pertaining to the natural world. Of course
our understanding of these truths will change, but the truths themselves do not.
The fact is that science can only point towards the truth, but as evidence accrues, our pointers becomes more and more accurate over time. The problem (for me anyway) with the Bible is that it assumes 'absolute truth' from the outset - ironically, this position automatically means that any scrutiny of it, or of 'the facts' used to support this assumed absolute truth can only possibly lead to more uncertainty - pretty much the opposite of the 'scientific method'. This is why I think that many 'theories' and/or 'facts' based on the biblical texts are seldom subject to anywhere near the same level of objective scrutiny as even the most mundane (real) scientific theory - because such scrutiny can only do them harm. On the contrary, scientific facts and theories lend themselves, by definition, to scrutiny. And what if they fail when subjected to intense, evidentially based scrutiny? Simple, they're outta there... it's possibly the biggest irony of all that all scientific theories are subject to Darwin's original maxim - 'survival of the fittest'.
Swift (from post below this one)...
Now lets say for a second that there was another gospel found and it was authentic. It updated or modified some things in the bible but didn't go against the general principles. Does that make the current bible untrue?
Interesting question, and you only have to look at the reaction to the recently discovered 'Gospel of Judas' to answer it. The key point here is 'and it was authentic'... for as long as that remains contentious, it will never be accepted as 'biblical level' absolute truth. My question is this though - what makes it any more or less authentic than any other gospel? Atleast we know exactly where and when this was found (if not written) and exactly how it has been interpreted/translated - which is alot more than can be said for other, actual biblical texts...